Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site daemon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!daemon!richl
From: richl@daemon.UUCP (Rick Lindsley)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX 4.2 thrashing - the cause?
Message-ID: <317@daemon.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 14:48:11 EST
Article-I.D.: daemon.317
Posted: Wed Jan 23 14:48:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 07:34:55 EST
References: <1282@kaist.UUCP> <1608@ittvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: richl@daemon.UUCP (Rick Lindsley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 14
Summary: 

I don't think you understand...the file systems, in the example you
gave, ARE only 90% full. If you add the free and used, it does not
equal (the partition - superblock). 4.2 has ALREADY reserved that 10%
for you, and if you have a relatively inactive file system which you
are just using for convenient storage, and efficiency is not as big a
concern as available space, it may be worth your while to regain that
space for yourself.  Check out tunefs(8).

This is not to say your solution is incorrect -- anytime a disk is
near-full you will suffer a slight but increasing degradation as files
fragment hither and yon. It IS better to spread things around. But your
view of the 10% threshold is not entirely correct.

Rick Lindsley